But the Wealth Report’s success came mostly from its readers and commenters. The comments from Tiredofflippingthebill, Peter Bradshaw, David Lesperance and others were often better, and better-read, than the original posts. To them, and to all the readers and commenters, I give my most heartfelt thanks.

You have shown the world that highly researched, factual, non-partisan and non-judgmental coverage of the wealthy is still in high demand.

As a sign-off, I present The Wealth Report “Best of” list, with the top 10 most popular posts of all time.

That fact that America’s tax code is progressive–i.e., the wealthy pay more–has been largely a given since the first income-tax was levied in 1862.

Yet the Buffett Rule and the ensuing debate over Mitt Romney’s taxes has painted a picture of America’s tax structure as regressive. Polls show that many Americans think the wealthy now pay a lower share than the rest of America.

Click to enlarge chart

While this may be true for a small number of rich people, it is broadly inaccurate. According to the most recent data from the IRS, America’s tax code remains progressive all the way up the income ladder–until you get to a tiny sliver of Americans who earn more than $10 million a year (there are about 8,000 of those out of 104 million filers).

What’s more, the wealthiest earners are paying a higher tax rate than they did in 2008.

Consider the following chart, which shows adjusted gross incomes and average tax rates, i.e., total income tax as a percentage of adjusted gross income less deficit:

We all know that the one percent (those making around $340,000 a year) as a group pay a higher rate than any other income group. Yet the new IRS data show that even the $1 million-plus earners (the top fraction of the one percent) pays the highest rate.

It’s only when you get to somewhere between the $10 million-plus earners and the “Fortunate 400″–the 400 highest earners–that the tax rates paid start to dip. And when they dip, they still dip to levels far above the average rates paid by 90% of Americans. The Fortunate 400 paid a rate of more than 18% in the latest period.

This isn’t to argue against higher taxes on the wealthy. Nor does it deny that some rich people reduce their taxes to well below the official rates through tax avoidance schemes and capital gains.

Yet the charts do support the previous findings that a growing number of today’s wealthy make their money from salaries rather than capital gains. And those top earners as a group still pay the highest rates in the country.

The idea that you can get rich by picturing yourself rich has a long and oft-mocked history.

Even before “The Secret” — the blockbuster bestseller that said that good thoughts lead to success – there were similar tomes like “The Science of Getting Rich” published in 1910 and “Think and Grow Rich” in 1937.

All of the books have the same premise: You can visualize your way to wealth.

Hard work? Revolutionary ideas? Luck? Timing? Nice to have, maybe, but apparently not as powerful as picturing your way to riches, these books say.

Yet Sara Blakely, the billionaire founder of Spanx, is apparently big on such visualization. In Jean Chatzky’s new book “The Difference,” Blakely says that “I believe you can take mental snapshots of your future and what success looks like to you. If you mentally see yourself in a scenario, you’ll start to make decisions in your life that get you there.”

She said that years ago, when she was going door-to-door selling fax machines, she visualized herself as the rich owner of Spanx. Of course, she said she had to take action and work hard to achieve the vision. But the visualization led her along the way.

Scott Adams, the Dilbert creator, is also a proponent. In the 1980s, he followed advice from a friend to visualize what he wanted and then write it down 15 times in a row, once a day. Within weeks, “amazing coincidences started to happen,” he says. “Within a few months the goal was accomplished.” He applied the same technique to get his MBA and become a syndicated cartoonist.

Again, it’s easy to make fun of the idea that people can have it all if they just change their thoughts. But apparently, it works for some people – like Scott Adams and Sara Blakely.

Millionaires don’t get to be millionaires by playing games on their phones right?

Bloomberg News

Wrong. According a new study from the Luxury Institute, 73% affluent smartphone users (with an average net worth of $2.8 million) used smartphone apps every day. The most frequently downloaded apps for millionaires included Angry Birds, Facebook and Words with Friends.

Of luxury consumers with smartphones, 28% of them own an iPhone, 22% own an Android, 16% own a BlackBerry and 2% own another smartphone, the study said.

The wealthy also buy a lot of stuff on their phones, with an average purchase price of $628, according to the study.

Yet the Luxury Institute said the luxury world needs to understand the true marketing power of Angry Birds and Words with Friends. While they may look like primitive and frivolous time-waster apps, they’re actually “prime spots for luxury mobile marketing.”

The Institute doesn’t offer any specific guidance. But consider the possible synergies. The Millionaire’s version of Angry Birds could feature chickens launching in G550s, soaring headlong into the Italianate mansions protecting the pigs.

Or, instead of bombs, the birds could get giant bags of cash that they could drop on sponsored retailers like Bergdorf, Tiffany’s and Louis Vuitton.

The U.K.’s new budget has ignited all manner of class warfare. Retirees say it’s a gift to the rich at the expense of the poor. The wealthy say it’s another attack on success and job creators.

But one piece has gone largely unnoticed: the limit on philanthropic giving. The measure would cap the tax relief for wealthy givers at 25% of their annual income, or £50,000, whichever is higher. It takes effect next year.

It’s similar to the Obama proposal, which would limit charitable deductions for high earners to 28% for couples with incomes of $250,000 or more or individuals with income of $200,000. The White House says limiting itemized deductions would shrink the deficit by $584 billion over 10 years.

The U.K. expects its measure (along with caps on business deductions) to result in $490 million in saved revenue.

“Giving shouldn’t mean you pay no tax,” according to the U.K. Treasury.

Yet charities say the plan would put a chill on philanthropic giving just as the U.K. government is trying to create a new culture of giving.

The government has waged a massive PR campaign in the past two years to get the British wealthy move toward the American culture of philanthropy. Last year, Prime Minister David Cameron released the “Giving White Paper” which aimed to “renew Britain’s culture of philanthropy by working with charities and businesses to support new ways for people to contribute which fit into busy modern lives.”

It included millions in government support for charity groups, research and committees.

The new tax, say many charity groups, rolls back the efforts. The new limits will be especially damaging to people who make a one-time gift of more than half of their wealth to a foundation — which the wealthy often do for estate planning.

“People should not have to pay tax on money they have given away for the public benefit,” said Chris Lane of the Charity Tax Group, quoted in the Third Sector magazine.

Britain is not America, of course. But the country’s recent experiment with hiking taxes on the rich may have some lessons for the U.S.

To dig itself out of recession, Britain hiked its income-tax rate to 50% for those making £150,000 or more. Proponents said the tax was needed to bring fairness to an economy, in which the rich were getting richer and not contributing enough to the cause. Critics said the tax would chase out the job creators.

As it turned out, the real impact was in tax avoidance. According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s budget announced today, the income-tax hike caused “massive distortions” that cost the government.

A study found that £16 billion of income was deliberately shifted into the previous tax year. As a result, the tax raised only £1 billion – a third of the amount forecast.

“No Chancellor can justify a tax rate that damages our economy and raises next to nothing,” he said.

As a result, the new budget calls for reducing the tax to 45% after April 2013. To appease the tax-the-rich crowd, the government will impose a seven percent tax on purchases of mansions for more than £2 million.

Again, this doesn’t mean that we would see the same level of avoidance in the U.S. under the Obama plan. But Britain seems to provide support for arguments by Arthur Laffer and others that when you try to tax the rich above a certain rate, they will do all they can to avoid it.

It’s become an accepted truth that taxes are falling for the rich. Just look at Warren Buffett, who pays a lower rate than his secretary. Or the top 400 earners, who pay an effective rate of 18.1%. Or look at the official rate, which at 35% is half of the 70% rate on the top earners in 1980. Republicans in Washington have blocked any attempt to raise taxes on the top earners, leading to ongoing coverage of the “coddled super-rich.” Less noticed is the fact that taxes for rich people in some states are indeed rising. Yesterday saw two such moves: Maryland’s Senate approved a tax hike on those making $500,000 or more, and California’s governor proposed hiking taxes on those making $300,000 or more. At the end of this year, New York will start generating revenues from a new tax on those earning $300,000 or more. And while New Jersey’s governor has beaten back calls for another millionaire’s tax, the issue could always come back if the economy falters again. In California and Maryland, the proposed tax hike on the top earners generated the usual reaction from both sides. “It was a nod to the more progressive members of our caucus — that we were listening to their concerns,” Maryland’s Democratic Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, told CBS radio. Republican State Sen. E.J. Pipkin said Maryland was “sending the wrong message to job creators.” California Governor Jerry Brown has doubled down on his plans to fix the state’s problems by taxing the wealthy. His original proposal called for raising revenues with a new half-percent sales-tax increase and a tax hike on those making $250,000 or more. His new plan calls for a smaller sales-tax increase and more taxes on the wealthy. The tax hikes will start on those making $250,000 or more, who will see an increase of two percentage points, according to Bloomberg. Those making $1 million or more will pay a tax rate of 13.3%. That means that a million-plus earner in Califonia could pay a combined federal and tax rate of 48.3% — not including local taxes. Whether this is too much or too little depends on your politics. But the fact remains: taxes in some of the states with the most high earners are going up, not down.

One of the common refrains in the inequality debate these days is that the one percent has too much influence in Washington. It’s become such a part of conventional wisdom that very few people are willing to refute it in public.

Bloomberg

Ken Griffin

Until now. Hedge-fund billionaire Ken Griffin said in a rare interview with Melissa Harris of the Chicago Tribune that the very wealthy actually have too little influence in politics. When asked about the influence of people “of his means” he said: “I think they actually have an insufficient influence,” he told the Tribune. “Those who have enjoyed the benefits of our system more than ever now owe a duty to protect the system that has created the greatest nation on this planet.” Although he’s given millions of dollars to conservative causes and Super PACS, he said the money is aimed at helping the country, not himself. He says government has become too involved in financial markets and business. “I think if you look at the realm we’re discussing, which is the political realm, I think it would be impossible to find an action by any politician intended to specifically favor either my firm or myself. That’s not the driver of my involvement.” He said that the values of economic freedom are under attack in America and that “this belief that a larger government is what creates prosperity, that a larger government is what creates good (is wrong). We’ve seen that experiment. The Soviet Union collapsed.” Griffin was also asked about the difference between gambling and financial markets and said that there is a “huge difference.” “Gambling is entertainment…Financial markets, what one often refers to as speculation, is really the force by which we move capital to the best and highest use,” he said. He doesn’t talk about taxes for the wealthy being at historically low rates. But he does say that the inequality debate has been harmful and that “some people go through an experience like ’08 and say, you know, ‘The world’s not fair. ‘ ‘” “This is the first time class warfare has really been embraced as a political tool. Because we are looking at an administration that has embraced class warfare as being politically expedient, I do worry about the publicity that comes with being willing to both with my dollars and, more importantly, with my voice to stand for what I believe in.” Do you agree that the wealthy have too little influence in America?

It’s well known by now that Mitt Romney is the third richest Presidential candidate in recent history. It’s not as well known, however, where his more than $200 million fortune is invested or accounted for.

According to a new analysis from Wealth-X, the wealth research firm, Romney has about $35 million of his fortune in cash, cash equivalents and gold.

He also has $52 million in Federal Home Loan Bank Securities, a government agency that issues low-risk bonds. He has $72 million in scattered market investments. His private equity investments account for 20% or more of his portfolio.

His four homes are barely a drop in the bucket, even though they have a combined value of more than $17 million.

Oh, and he has $500,000 in horses.

While not that unsual for a rich guy, Romney’s portfolio is sure to become politicized. The left will no doubt argue that his large cash horde is an argument for why the rich should be taxed more, since the money is not being invested in businesses or jobs. They might also point out the hypocrisy of a private-sector champion investing so much in government-related entities.

Republicans may argue that Romney’s investments show the true nature of responsible wealth today. He’s not putting most of his money into yachts and private palaces, he’s putting the bulk of his money into the economy and businesses.

What do you think of Mitt’s investments?

UPDATE: This post was updated to correct the private equity category, which is a large share of Romney’s portfolio. Wealth-X said it’s numbers are derived by using the mid-point of the values provided in Romney’s election disclosures.

In 1982, when Forbes first launched its Forbes 400 list of richest Americans, the richest American was shipping tycoon Daniel Ludwig, with a net worth of a measly $2 billion.

Bloomberg News

The names and numbers have changed dramatically since then. But the Forbes list – and rich lists in general – have largely remained the same. They are annual or semi-annual, semi-educated guesses on how rich the super-rich really are.

Yet now, a truly new kind of rich list has debuted. And it may set the standard for all the others.

Unlike Forbes and the others lists —and there are plenty others, from China’s Hurun Index, to the Times Rich List in the U.K. – the Bloomberg Index is updated daily.

If you want to know what Warren Buffett or Carlos Slim or Larry Ellison is worth today, you can get it. Forbes, however, will only give you a number that could be more than five months old. In today’s financial markets, five months is an eternity, and people’s wealth can spike and crash overnight.

(Of course,whether the world really needs real-time net worth estimates on billionaire’s is a separate question).

“It’s not fair to give readers a net worth from four or five months ago,” said Matt Miller, the Bloomberg editor in charge of the Billionaire’s Index, who used to co-edit the Forbes Worlds’ Billionaire’s list.

Of course, rich lists are just estimates. They are popular precisely because they’re willing to put a hard dollar number on the personal wealth of the super-rich. Yet in truth, no one really knows what many of the super-rich are worth at any given moment (including the super-rich themselves).

Many of them own private companies, which are hard to value until they’re sold. And they often have debts, secret accounts, financial obligations and other investments that don’t show up to the public (or even their spouses).

The Bloomberg listers say their estimates may be more accurate than the competition’s because they have better data and reporting (from the Bloomberg terminals and its reporting staff).

The estimates are updated daily from the fresh data – whether it’s changes in a company stock price or private company, or a shift in commodity markets or other asset values.

Bloomberg also shows its readers what’s behind its’ estimates and how the wealth is deconstructed, though that feature is only available to terminal users.

“We wanted to be transparent,” said Miller.

Bloomberg only has 20 billionaires listed so far. But there is already one who differs dramatically on both list: Ingvar Kamprad.

Forbes lists the Ikea founder as being worth $6 billion. Bloomberg lists him at $42 billion. Miller said that while Forbes doesn’t count the Ikea shares Kamprad holds in his foundation, Bloomberg does.

Congress has come under increasing attack for its wealth. But U.S. Congresspeople are poor, compared with China’s political leaders.

Bloomberg News

According to the Hurun Report, as cited by Bloomberg, the 70 richest delegates in China’s National People’s Congress have a combined net worth of 565.8 billion yuan or $89.8 billion. That’s more than 10 times the combined net worths of all the members of Congress, the Supreme Court and the President. (Their collective riches are only $7.5 billion.)

What’s more, China’s politicians are getting richer more rapidly. Last year, their combined wealth grew by $11.5 billion, or about 15%.

For those who think this growing wealth reflects a rising tide that’s lifting all Chinese boats, consider this: Per capita annual income in China is still about $2,425.

According to Bloomberg, the Hurun report “points to the challenges that China’s new generation of leaders, to be named this year, faces in countering a rise in social unrest fueled by illegal land grabs and corruption.”

The question is whether this skyrocketing “princeling” wealth will touch off social unrest or real protests. A kind of “Occupy the Great Hall” movement.

Many Western China watchers point out that as long as the overall economy keep growing and generating jobs, China won’t erupt in class warfare. What’s more, government officials are currently making a huge show of cracking down on corruption, and they maintain tight control over communications and the media.

Yet China seems to support an old adage: In the U.S. people get rich to get into politics. In other countries, they get into politics to get rich.

Do you think the wealth of China’s politicians will create an “Occupy”-style backlash?

The map of the world’s wealth has been turned upside down in recent years. So-called “poor” countries are where the wealth is and so-called “rich” countries just aren’t as rich anymore.

This flip-flopped wealth creation has totally re-drawn the luxury market, wealth management and the world’s millionaire and billionaire ranking.

But it’s also created some fantastic new global terminologies for the nouveaux riche. (“Nouveaux” being, well, old hat).

We have, for instance, the Blingsheviks – the flashier, yacht-fleet-owning cousin to the Russian Oligarch.

We have the Bollygarch, the Indian version of the Oligarch, prone to living in personal skyscrapers. According to Wikipedia, Bollygarchs “wield significant influence over the social and political agenda through big business and some philanthropic work. The name is believed to have been coined by the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs based in Chanakyapuri.”

And now we have the Ka-Ching! Dynasty – a term for the super-rich families and offspring of China’s government.

The Ka-Chings! moniker first popped up in The Washington Post more than six years ago. But lately it’s gained prominence in the Australian press and beyond, describing a Chinese elite that is increasingly dynastic (i.e. sons, daughters and relatives of government officials) and increasingly flashy.

“The echelon of China’s business elite seem to be dreaming bigger and planning their own personal versions of global domination,” announced a series on Australian Broadcastiong Corp.’s “Foreign Correspondent” program.

The show said that within 10 years, half of the world’s billionaires will come from China – a bold claim given that China has currently only has 5% of the world’s millionaires.

Still, the developing-country rich are clearly not only changing the economics of wealth but also the language.

What other terms have you heard for the rich of Russia, Brazil, India or China?

As Rick Santorum’s profile grows, so does that of his big financial backer, Foster Friess.

Friess, of course, is the faith-based, 71-year-old former investment manager, who is one of the largest donors to the Red, White and Blue fund, Santorum’s Super-PAC.

When Friess entered the limelight, some blogs and websites started referring to him as “billionaire Foster Friess.” Friess countered that he wasn’t worth $1 billion and joked that if he was a billionaire, this was news to him.

As he told the Washington Post: “My wife came to me and said, ‘Have you been holding out on me?’ People asked, ‘So what are you — a multimillionaire?’ I like to say a billionaire wanna-be.”

So how much is he really worth?

The folks at Wealth-X, the wealth research firm that gave us Romney’s true wealth, now have an answer. Friess, they say, is worth$530 million.

“Based on our own proprietary analytics of publicly available data, Wealth-X was able to discern that his actual net worth was roughly half of the popular conception,” said David Friedman, president of Wealth-X.

Of course, the moniker of “500 millionaire” (pent-hectomillionaire?) isn’t quite as catchy as billionaire. But either way, I think we can all agree that he’s rich.

According to the latest reckoning by Forbes, Ms. Rinehart — the mining mogul turned newspaper baron after her raid this week on a bigger share of the publisher of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age — is worth a cool US$18 billion, up from US$9 billion last year.

That puts Ms. Rinehart in the big league of global billionaires and the richest women in the entire Asia-Pacific region, according to Forbes’s latest findings.

Mitt Romney’s income last year of $21.7 million clearly makes him rich. But how rich?

Associated Press

So rich, that he makes the one percenters look like the 99 percent.

According to a calculation from Emmanuel Saez, the economist at the University of California at Berkley, who has become the top expert on top incomes, Mitt Romney’s income of $21.7 million puts him well above the 1%.

In fact, his income puts him in about the 99.9975% income bracket. Put another way, Mitt is in the top 0.0025%.

According to Saez, who told me he used “the standard Pareto fit” for the Mitt calculation, there are at least 4,000 families that make more than Romney.

Yet Saez commented that “Romney’s income strikes me as reasonably high relative to his estimated wealth of $250 million (“Warren Buffett seems to have a much much lower income/wealth ratio..”)

As for Newt Gingirch, he too is richer than the 1%. Hi income of $3.2 million puts him somewhere between the top 0.5% and the top 0.1%.

All of which goes to show that even within the 1%, there are one percenters.

About The Wealth Report

The Wealth Report is a daily blog focused on the culture and economy of the wealthy. It is written by Robert Frank, a senior writer for the Wall Street Journal and author of the newly released book “THE HIGH-BETA RICH.”

Top Groups In Personal Finance

Share your own investing savvy and learn from experts and other investors about how mutual funds work, which funds are best for various portfolios, new types of mutual funds and other facets of fund investing.